07-21-1999 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• • • Holiday Produce Cup Planning Case 564-99 July 21, 1999 Page 3 f. The provisions of Subdivision 1125.01(1)e of this Title are considered and satisfactorily met: (1) Relationship to Municipal Comprehensive Plan. (2) The geographical area involved. (3) Whether such use will tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (4) The character of the surrounding area. (5) The demonstrated need for such use. The proposal is for a temporary produce stand adjacent to the parking lot of an existing Holiday Stationstore. The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Mixed Use PUD, which coincides with the zoning of this site. Such an accessory use would not be inconsistent with the Plan. The store is at the corner of two major transportation arteries and is screened from adjacent residential uses. The sale of produce is a typical seasonal business in a community such as Mounds View and it serves a community need. The short duration of the use will result in little, if any, adverse effect upon the surrounding area. In addition to the specific criteria addressed in Section 1114.04 and the adverse effects considerations in Subdivision 1125.01 (1)e, there are generic CUP criteria that appear in Subdivision 1125.01 (3)b that need to be addressed by the Planning Commission. They are as follows: (1) The use will not create an excessive burden on existing parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. It is not expected that this use will have any impact on parks, schools, streets and other public facilities and utilities which serve or are proposed to serve the area. (2) The use will be sufficiently compatible or separated by distance or screening from adjacent residentially zoned or used land so that existing homes will not be depreciated in value and there will be no deterrence to development of vacant land. The produce stand would be screened from the neighboring yet -to -be completed Realife Cooperative senior residential complex by the Holiday building and by distance. (3) The structure and site shall have an appearance that will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent residential properties. While staff has no plans to show the design or construction of this structure, it is not expected that the 12-foot square stand would have an adverse appearance, nor would it be adjacent to any residential property. (4) The use, in the opinion of the City Council, is reasonably related to the overall needs of the City and to the existing land use. The City already has given approval for one produce stand to be located at Moundsview Square. This type of business, however, depends upon existing traffic for the majority of its business, which means it will draw primarily from those people already at the Holiday store. Having two such businesses separated by a third of a mile on opposite sides of Highway 10 would satisfy a need and provide for additional convenience.